![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the > > sync() condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock > > sections; thus avoiding cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how > > this will work out in relation to PI. We might track those in the > > barrier scope and boost those by the max prio of the blockers. > > Is this really needed? We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms > exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the > existing ones. yes, it's needed. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-28 16:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||